UnitedHealthcare CEO shot to death in Manhattan

This entire saga has been rather interesting to witness, and it reminds me of that movie Joker from a few years ago. I see the glorification of a criminal act because of the real injustice.

And while I understand the misery that leaving health services to a corporation who's only goal is to make more money creates, and how dehumanizing that is, and how that can make people feel, It's still murder. But then again, we're talking about a system that dehumanizes people and doesn't really care who dies so long as the bottom line remains profitable, and for better or for worse, their CEOs are the faces of these corporations.

So, a part of me is uncomfortable by a crowd celebrating a murder, and not just morally uncomfortable, but it's also what it implies psychologically for society, and that's what's very telling and unnerving perhaps, that's the kind of crowd that would celebrate the murder of their political opponents, the same crowd that posted videos complaining at how Trump's would be assassins missed their shot. Another part of me understands why someone would, perhaps not celebrate, but at least hold not that much empathy, or any.
 
Alejo said:
This entire saga has been rather interesting to witness, and it reminds me of that movie Joker from a few years ago. I see the glorification of a criminal act because of the real injustice.

And while I understand the misery that leaving health services to a corporation who's only goal is to make more money creates, and how dehumanizing that is, and how that can make people feel, It's still murder. But then again, we're talking about a system that dehumanizes people and doesn't really care who dies so long as the bottom line remains profitable, and for better or for worse, their CEOs are the faces of these corporations.

So, a part of me is uncomfortable by a crowd celebrating a murder, and not just morally uncomfortable, but it's also what it implies psychologically for society, and that's what's very telling and unnerving perhaps, that's the kind of crowd that would celebrate the murder of their political opponents, the same crowd that posted videos complaining at how Trump's would be assassins missed their shot. Another part of me understands why someone would, perhaps not celebrate, but at least hold not that much empathy, or any.
Click to expand...

I think the conflict comes down to one thing: information.

People’s natural instinct towards evil individuals is to want to kill them, because that’s what is best for the tribe. It’s like an old, built-in brain circuit. The problem is there’s a lot of dumb people who still have that circuit and the media are corrupt.

These people don’t wish for Trump to be assassinated because they believe he’s a good person.

So it’s not the idea to take evil people out on a hunt and come back without them that’s wrong. What’s wrong is how people come to the conclusion that someone is evil.
 
One thing about this celebration of a CEOs murder, is that it is allowed, and subsequently becomes a news topic.

'But free speech...'

If I said something like what's being said in social media on this forum, there would be some repercussion, because I know this forum has a policy against hate/violence. And that is not unique to this forum alone - it is standard moderating.

So, I think it is allowed by social media to broadcast a incitement to paint a broad picture of Americans. But who allows this? All social media is owned by big corporations - the reason why this voiced anger has become newsworthy. So, until recently censorship has been used against conservative voices - has seemingly been overcome to some degree - so how do these media types react? They make free speech a travesty by allowing and amplifying fringe, radical, violent ideals. And it is cast over Americans when its origins comes from themselves. They could remedy this by moderation as has been the practice, but it isn't naturally occurring, and it is likely a contrivance to stir up discontent in the masses. They would simply be deleting the messaging they've created. It is a media false flag in large part - sure there is sympathetic voices, as they are aware that there are... it's like they want to antagonize them and incite trouble... remember all the rioting under Trumps first term?
So, I think it is democrats antics, because who are the mass media? Democrats.

So you have to wonder, what is their tact this time around - insofar as stirring up trouble and undermine the Trump presidency?

I think they've lost a lot of clout amongst the constituency and can't really incite riots like last time... maybe assassinations - that has become popular lately... sabotage, ect.

They way they attack American values by mocking them, and to undermine everything that stands in their way, I'm sure it will all lead back to them wherever there is trouble. They can't just lay low, they are impatient and hate to see their toil undone. The fact they've been exposed to their own fools make any comeback unlikely - unless the Republicans screw up, which is inevitable.
 
A Florida woman is facing charges after she allegedly made threatening statements to an insurance company by using a phrase police believe is a reference to evidence found in connection to the fatal shooting of the UnitedHealthcare CEO in New York City.

www.usatoday.com

'Delay, Deny, Depose': Florida woman arrested, accused of threatening insurance company

According to an affidavit, Briana Boston said the phrase, \
www.usatoday.com www.usatoday.com

Briana Boston, 42, of Lakeland, was charged with threats to conduct a mass shooting or an act of terrorism, according to a probable cause affidavit obtained by USA TODAY.

On Dec. 10, the FBI contacted Lakeland Police about the threat. Boston is said to have called BlueCross BlueShield regarding recent medical claims that were denied.

During the end of the recorded conversation, Boston is accused of stating: "Delay, Deny, Depose. You people are next," according to police documents.

According to the affidavit, when police contacted Boston at her home, she allegedly confessed and apologized for using the phrase.

"Boston stated she used those words because it's what is in the news right now," the affidavit stated. "Boston advised she learned of the phrase because of the current events regarding the UnitedHealthcare homicide. Boston further stated she did not own any firearms, and she was not a danger to anyone."

During her first court date, her lawyer, Jim Headley, argued for her release, mentioning that she's a mother of three with no criminal history, WFLA reported. Despite this, the judge still gave her a bond.

“I do find that the bond of $100,000 is appropriate considering the status of our country at this point," the judge said, per the outlet.
Click to expand...
 
Meh, he deserved it, good riddance. The core issue here is that laws are not really made to uphold justice, but instead enable kleptocracy. In the presence of an inverted judicial system, there are not really many "clean" ways for people to obtain restitution for their grievances that will have any meaningful impact. If corrupt people were held more directly accountable, there would be less corruption. If you choose to represent the Beast, then you also accept the consequences of that choice, and "I was just following orders" isn't an excuse. It's a slippery slope to be sure, and all of this is far from ideal, but in my mind the shooter was justified.
 
Neil said:
Meh, he deserved it, good riddance. The core issue here is that laws are not really made to uphold justice, but instead enable kleptocracy. In the presence of an inverted judicial system, there are not really many "clean" ways for people to obtain restitution for their grievances that will have any meaningful impact. If corrupt people were held more directly accountable, there would be less corruption. If you choose to represent the Beast, then you also accept the consequences of that choice, and "I was just following orders" isn't an excuse. It's a slippery slope to be sure, and all of this is far from ideal, but in my mind the shooter was justified.
Click to expand...
Seriously? Murder is never justified. Period, full stop.
 
Mrs. Peel said:
But that is not the case here.
Click to expand...
Are we sure? I read that his company and even he personally were sued many times for doing their job bad. Which is not the problem if his job was being barista, but his job included dealing indirectly with people's health and thus lives. Him being killed is just consequence of his bad work, which brought misery and suffering to the people.
 
Neil said:
Meh, he deserved it, good riddance.
Click to expand...
Sounds like something Hilary Clinton would say. Hey guess what, another CEO will be there to do the same thing. All the killer did was lose his liberty for nothing other than sinning against his soul. It's like starting yourself on fire in front of the Israeli embassy. It accomplishes nothing.

Neil said:
The core issue here is that laws are not really made to uphold justice, but instead enable kleptocracy. In the presence of an inverted judicial system, there are not really many "clean" ways for people to obtain restitution for their grievances that will have any meaningful impact. If corrupt people were held more directly accountable, there would be less corruption. If you choose to represent the Beast, then you also accept the consequences of that choice
Click to expand...
No evidence to back up your bolded statement, nor does it take into account the possibility that the killer was programmed and just went off. Why did he go sit in a McDonald's after murdering someone in broad daylight on a New York city street? Why did he start screaming at the media when he was being taken into the holding facility? Seems like you're assuming motive when it's not clear.
 
Beau said:
Sounds like something Hilary Clinton would say. Hey guess what, another CEO will be there to do the same thing. All the killer did was lose his liberty for nothing other than sinning against his soul. It's like starting yourself on fire in front of the Israeli embassy. It accomplishes nothing.
Click to expand...
That's probably the main aspect of this event. In the best case scenario, it will inspire other events of people reacting to real injustice in a violent manner, accomplishing nothing but chaos because in reality it will change nothing, the reality on the ground for those who purchase their product will not change at all.

Beau said:
Seems like you're assuming motive when it's not clear.
Click to expand...
And this is the other thing that is probably so elusive and odd about this entire event. If it had been a disgruntled former employee, or someone who had been the victim of greedy practices who lost life savings or something, then it would've been perhaps more relatable, at an emotional level. But this kid was probably really well off, so... it was a rich kid who murdered another rich guy for, or so we're being told, the grievances of poor people? neither of them probably know what it's like to be poor and unable to afford health insurance.

I think anyone can relate to the emotional exhaustion one feels when at the receiving end of things like predatory health insurance practices, or any other practice where one knows one is being screwed. But I think it's a more relatable response in normal human beings to defiantly "make it work" as a way to say "you're not going to ruin my life" than to shoot up a place and kill someone.

Whether that is right or wrong, is probably a different conversation, but I think a father would rather find a way to make things work, than to go and make the lives of everyone he loves worse by doing something nuts like this. But then again, it seems to be the theme of the past few years at a social level in the West, to give in to your impulses no matter how selfish or destructive.
 
I have not read the entire thread yet, just a couple of posts, but I have been thinking about this, I used to work with UnitedHealthCare a couple of years ago. I worked with different plans and Line of Business inside UHC, I can say the UHC is one of the best insurances for a reason. Here is the thing, a health insurance such as UHC, Cigna, Blue Cross Blue Shield etc. are regulated by CMS (Center of Medicare and Medicaid) yes, they offer their own private plans for marketplace, but those are also regulated by other state and federal entities.

Every year Medicare make changes for drugs and benefits which an insurance company needs to follow and adapt itself. I didn't know this CEO because he was relatively new to the position, but used to read his communications, even though I can't say much for privacy matters, they were always doing changes and updates to their systems to improve the data and alleviate decisions for their members. Most of the time this worked, but many other times it did not. And It's expected, but something I noticed during my time with UHC is that they always tried to maintain the human factor in every aspect of the work, to encourage their agents to treat people nice and with respect, to offer resources when people call in, and they mention they don't have a home or need help with something else that is not health related. Yes, I know it can also be a factor to attract members but nevertheless, at least they tried to create a valid and good customer services with good options besides all regulations they need to follow.

The CEO is not the person in charge completely of the ship but mostly the big face of it, UHC is an open company in the market and have many investors who can change the course and decisions of it. This event of the CEO being assassinated, is being really suspicious to me. There are many things that don't add, when it comes to the suspect history, the proof, the way he was apprehended, it's all inconclusive. Yes, I would believe the claims being approved or not by AI would be something UHC would do, but they always had a human team for claims who revise the appeals or the decisions made for any denial. So to me that would not be a reason for this event.

There has to be something related to a future change or something which I don't have the knowledge right now, that maybe would be in favor of people, or a bit positive, and UHC would back it up or could be one of the entities behind it. It seems to me that this was more like a message to all insurances. There is also the possibility something this CEO was working on not representing UHC but on a personal level. Who knows, but overall this seems to me as not an act of this individual because of his personal reasons, but something behind manipulating this.
 
rs said:
Seriously? Murder is never justified. Period, full stop.
Click to expand...
Do not they murder many people by refusing legitimate healtcare ?
So, the question is : can we murder someone who murder others ?
There's justice for this, but look at how justice is, can you count on it ? The more money you have, the best you'll be defended up to coming to a parody of justice. So response is more no than yes.
Other parameter is : yes but it's a company we are talking about and who is doing bad things to people. So question is : in this case, if the "murder" (or non-assistance to a person in danger, and even worst, this person paid to be assisted !) is done by the company, who is responsible ? We again turn to justice but it's a dead end.

If the autorithies were well doing their job, if the laws in place were good ones (i do not know, but something like an insurance can't make profit, must be like non-profit associations and must, yearly, pay back any extra earned money to their affiliates), or if these company were more monitored/audited by true honest people (I insist on this because audit companies are parf of the mafia), such situations would not happen.

So, yes & no about murdering someone else being bad. It's not bad if it's to prevent other murders, which is the role of the (broken) justice. When justice or state is not anymore doing its job, it's normal to start to see such even happening. Think also about the false teaching of Catholicism, which say that if you have to turn the other cheek, it's from Matthieu, and Laura well instructed us that Matthieu is not what we can name a good reference. It's a way to ask the sheeps not to revolt when being sheared/killed by their masters, many of us still have this reflex to keep calm, gentle, ready to forgive, etc ... .
I also have in mind a recent response from the C's from a last session, about our life here and that our bodies are not "'important" regarding our greater soul, it's just one more incarnation, and visibly, this CEO higher self asked him to come back. At least, i think about what is happening in Gaza, all of these children being brutally and atrociously murdered, and we focus here on a guy who almost deserves what happened to him compared to thousands of murdered children who do not. So no, i'm not going to condamn this, it's a good signal sent to some (bad) elites.
 
I remember the C's had this to say about killing, from Session 12 July 2014.

(Perceval) Did Caesar himself ever kill anyone?

A: Many, certainly.

Q: (Perceval) So, given the times around then being very war-like, with a lot of fighting and death going on in general... and with some kind of a Great Soul at the time coming down and... it doesn't necessarily have to be a peacemaker kissing people's feet like Jesus... But is there some thing like what we would understand as a prohibition against killing other people as a requirement for being "spiritually evolved"

A: That idea is for the most part an exaggerated human philosophical construct.

Q: (L) So the idea that...

(Perceval) That to be good, thou shalt not kill..

(Atriedes) But which religion does that come from? The most killingest religion on the planet!

(Perceval) It does seem to... Killing another human being for a normal human being does seem to be quite a traumatic thing.

(Atriedes) It's socially inculcated.

(Perceval) I doubt it. I mean, for soldiers, they come back with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, they're trained to kill, and they want to kill themselves afterwards, ya know? They can't handle the fact that they...

(Pierre) Maybe the difference is that Caesar was aware of the very fundamental reason why he was killing...

A: Caesar intended to eliminate or vastly reduce killing. He knew what he was up against.
Click to expand...


I've seen online a lot of rumors spreading about Luigi being framed.
https://twitter.com/x/status/1866239210577068144
https://twitter.com/x/status/1866527057230041243

Also seen a couple documents circulating online claiming to be the manifesto found on Luigi. Different political groups seem to project this Robin Hood archetype onto him, and wish to claim them as their own. It's difficult to see how much of this is organic vs astroturfing.

If the perpetrator didn't act alone, could the motive be to prime the public for more stochastic violence or reprisals against perceived corruption or villainy in high places? We already saw a lot of that with the would-be Trump assassination plots...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom